• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should All Companies be Required to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

Should Congress Pass A Bill That Requires Employers to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 30.8%

  • No

    Votes: 58 63.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 5.5%
  • Total voters
    91
Thrilla said:
that's not a valid rationale for the federal government requiring companies pay for months of work that is not done.


why hire a woman if you know you'll have to shell out months and months of pay for .. nothing?

hire a man instead... no need to take a loss, no need to replace that worker when she's with child... and the man will probably be denied those benefits anyways ( while we pretend to be against discrimination.)
Click to expand...

The unfortunate reality is, this is exactly what will happen if the US companies are forced to pay for a very long materity leave. Today most big employers already do it. Most pay for 6 weeks (8 if you have a c-section) already, and you can legally take as much as 6 months unpaid leave and still keep your job. Most "career" women already work for these employers so the people who think that women have to give up their "careers" to have a baby are mistaken, unless you consider waitressing or something similar a career.

A knee jerk reaction will be exactly what you suggested which is people will attempt to hire men, consciously or subconsciously.
 
shrubnose said:
If the USA wants to increase the birth rate in all demographic groups it's going to have to start paying maternity leave to all women.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't want the birth rate to rise.

Immigration is that answer.

There are hundreds of millions of children (and their parents) who would be great, contributing citizens and who would love to become Americans.

A baby is a baby...no matter where they were born.

Ellis_Island_in_1905.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island
 
Last edited:
If an American woman wants a child, she should pay for 'it' herself/her and her partner.

If she/they can't, she shouldn't have 'it'.

If she doesn't like it...tough.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread is the impact of such a move on over all employment, not just employment of females. Let's not forget that the Obamacare employer mandate, which has been delayed for a year, kicks in later this year or early next, if not delayed again, and that is a negative driver against employment at the fringes because it boosts the cost to companies of each employee. If you try to add that mandate and then pile on another mandate, you end up trying to make businesses your engines of social benefits/change and they will simply be forced to seek lower cost solutions - i.e. fewer young women and fewer employees period.

If you want to provide, as a society, all kinds of social welfare benefits as other countries do, like Canada; you're going to have to start taxing more people at the federal level and eliminating more tax loopholes for everyone. You cannot have almost 50% of your working public paying no federal income taxes and expect to have social benefits similar to nations like Canada who have a far lesser number of working citizens not paying income taxes. It's pretty simple.
 
CanadaJohn said:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread is the impact of such a move on over all employment, not just employment of females. Let's not forget that the Obamacare employer mandate, which has been delayed for a year, kicks in later this year or early next, if not delayed again, and that is a negative driver against employment at the fringes because it boosts the cost to companies of each employee. If you try to add that mandate and then pile on another mandate, you end up trying to make businesses your engines of social benefits/change and they will simply be forced to seek lower cost solutions - i.e. fewer young women and fewer employees period.

If you want to provide, as a society, all kinds of social welfare benefits as other countries do, like Canada; you're going to have to start taxing more people at the federal level and eliminating more tax loopholes for everyone. You cannot have almost 50% of your working public paying no federal income taxes and expect to have social benefits similar to nations like Canada who have a far lesser number of working citizens not paying income taxes. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...


it is looking like a war on business lately

obamacare
minimum wage
paid maternity leave
epa regulations

business is the engine that makes this economy work....government spends the money.....business makes the money

every decision coming out of washington is anti business

my wife owns a business with her brother (140 employees, food industry)

it is hard back breaking work, and the profit margins are thin

you cant keep adding costs to businesses like this without ramifications

they have already cut 20+ jobs due to minimum wage hikes, and the ACA

it wont be too long before they just close their doors....as the profit wont be worth the risk/work

small business is where the engine starts ladies and gentlemen.....

be very careful about putting them out of business
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you agree with the President's recent statements that the US should join the rest of the industrialized world and have provided paid maternity leave? The President said that Congress should work on legislation requiring employers to have paid maternity leave? Do you believe this should be law or not?
Click to expand...

I believe in the past you have advocated for single payer healthcare paid for by the government. Why do you now want to add back additional universal items again paid for by companies?

Do you just advocate for stuff and then randomly decide who should get the bill or is this part of a wider plan you have?
 
Paschendale said:
Absolutely. Many women are forced to abandon their careers in order to have children or at least take a significant hit to. If family really is such an important value in this country, we shouldn't make it such a hardship for working women to also have families.

Every other western nation enforces paid maternity leave, and they benefit from it tremendously.
Click to expand...

If they are a valuable employee, then the employer will take steps to retain them, otherwise, they won't. Why bring the gov't into what is a CIVIL contract?
 
Paschendale said:
Absolutely. Many women are forced to abandon their careers in order to have children or at least take a significant hit to. If family really is such an important value in this country, we shouldn't make it such a hardship for working women to also have families.

Every other western nation enforces paid maternity leave, and they benefit from it tremendously.
Click to expand...

The evidence of such benefits seems to be lacking.

Family is only valuable to those who want one.

It has always been a hardship for men to have a family and a career women want the same things but not the sacrifice which comes with such choices
 
Phys251 said:
Terrible retort. Please explain why America, Papau New Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Swaziland are right about maternal leave and the rest of the entire WORLD are wrong.
Click to expand...

Can't answer for other nations.

In the US we respect the rights of individuals.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I believe in the past you have advocated for single payer healthcare paid for by the government. Why do you now want to add back additional universal items again paid for by companies?

Do you just advocate for stuff and then randomly decide who should get the bill or is this part of a wider plan you have?
Click to expand...

I would advocate for government providence of this. But in the context of what is being pursued about the administration and several members of congress I decided to ask it in that way.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I believe in the past you have advocated for single payer healthcare paid for by the government. Why do you now want to add back additional universal items again paid for by companies?

Do you just advocate for stuff and then randomly decide who should get the bill or is this part of a wider plan you have?
Click to expand...

Obama...and liberals in general...feeling emboldened by their success in foisting Obamacare on the public and, in line with their desire to cost businesses more money with an increased minimum wage, see this as an opportunity to try to score political points on the Republicans. He knows this is a fool's proposal...that it will never get passed or, even, seriously considered by anyone in Congress. But it gives him the opportunity to call Republicans insensitive...mean...bad guys. It's all a political ploy to help Democrats in the upcoming election.

Nothing more.
 
No. I think the population is large enough. We don't need any more incentives for people to have more children.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Obviously yes. And anyone who believes in reducing the number of abortions but opposes guaranteeing paid leave is a hypocrite. If the U.S. wasn't such an awful place to raise a mother, much less people in lower incomes would be motivated to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

I think the number of abortions needs to increase greatly. Not nearly enough people in this country who should have abortions are having them.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I did not. I only said it was a right. Which at this time it is.
Click to expand...
I know and I agree. My comment was aimed at the poster who brought abortion into the discussion.
 
one last question on this topic for those who are championing it

who pays for this? do you expect the small businessman to just eat the cost of this?

in our organization, we have approx 160 employees

i wanted to get the information on our company as an example

68 are female (almost all in child bearing years)

6 are currently pregnant (that is the ones hr knows about right now)

again...who pays for this? anyone want to guess what those 6 would cost this company this year if this were to pass?

my hr person and i worked on the numbers.....

lets just say i am glad i dont have to have THAT conversation with the owner right now
 
Maternity leave is already a part of why women are paid less than men. Mandating paid maternity leave would just make that Male/Female income gap that some people bitch about even larger.
 
Policies which force favorable treatment towards certain specific people tend to backfire, by creating an underlying disincentive to hire that type of person in the first place. This seems like no exception. People aren't stupid. If generous fully paid maternity leave is mandated, what's a safer and wider choice: the 25-35 year old married male professional worker, or the 25-35 year old married professional female worker?

Sure, discrimination on the basis of gender and other personal things is illegal, but in reality very difficult to police, so unfortunately I do not believe at the end of the day this policy would do any real favors for gender equality advocates. There are countless ways to demonstrate that the person the employer wants to hire (for his own discriminatory financially-related reasons) are legitimate and based on the job description, even if they're not.

The left-wing never seems to think critically about this. As another example, think of the 30-hour health insurance mandate. It just creates a dead spot where it doesn't make financial sense to work someone 25-35 hours. Employers will only make them 40 hours a week permanent, (and salaried wherever possible) if the work is truly truly needed, otherwise they will make sure to suppress hours scheduled to 25. People will lose hours and thus be poorer despite the policy's supposedly good intentions.
 
Maternity leave - yes...paid maternity leave - no...but if the employee has saved vacation time and unused sick time then that could be used to help compensate for time off.
 
The Man said:
Well then they can save up their own money and take time off unpaid to raise them.
Click to expand...

Some might. But then again, do we believe in family values? Or is that just conservatives talking out their ass?
 
Nope, some companies couldnt afford it.
 
Mycroft said:
Thank you.



And I contend that tax loopholes are irrelevant. There is great harm to businesses from this proposal:

Many businesses won't be able to afford the cost of paying an employee to do nothing. Many businesses don't earn the profits to absorb that cost. Many businesses are not able to raise prices to make up the additional costs without losing customers. This can only result in adverse effects on the businesses and/or their employees.



Something that everyone learns sooner or later is that doing something "just because the neighbors do it" is a stupid way to run their lives. The same is true for countries.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should do something just because other countries are doing it; that in and of itself would be a poor argument. What I am saying is that despite the cutbacks these companies have had to take, there is no conclusive proof that this alone will be a significant impact. on companies, because this hasn't been a major impact on employers in other nations.

Good God!!, but you are an arrogant SOB to think that YOU know better whether a company can "get along fine" without their profits!! That's that liberal/progressive/Democrat "I know better than YOU do" attitude.
Click to expand...

"Their profits" lol. Ownership and/or management of a company does not guarantee you more rights to profits than the employees that earned them.

By "negotiate", I was referring to the normal course of events...interview, offer, counter-offer, discussion, ultimate agreement or disagreement...that is a part of any decision to employ or be employed.
Click to expand...

Okay, but I still contend that without the collective bargaining process or a mandate, most workers whose employers do not already offer paid parental leave will have little to no chance of getting it.

A company that decides, for themselves, to offer an employee paid parental leave is not necessarily at a competitive disadvantage. It may very well be worth their while...and advantageous to their bottom line...to incorporate those costs. But the key is that it is left to the company to decide. When the government starts dictating, you've now taken the decision away from the company. As I've said before, there will be adverse effects on many companies. THAT is how the government is screwing things up.
Click to expand...

It can be worthwhile for them, but oftentimes expending more money than what is legally necessary on your employees means that you are being more generous to your employees than competitors and therefore bringing in less profits. This system discourages the existence of paid parental leave entirely in some cases.

Again, I contend that "taxes" is irrelevant. Now...if you had brought up Obamacare, then you WOULD be making a relevant point...but still a bad one. This proposal is not requiring a business to pay money to the government...as in taxes. It is more like Obamacare in that it is requiring businesses to buy something they may or may not want...that is an extra benefit for their employee. As I've said before...while still a bad idea, you would be more honest to advocate for an increase in taxes and the creation of another government entitlement...paid parental leave.
Click to expand...

I could've brought up ACA, but I oppose it for other reasons irrelevant to this discussion. So you support the idea of mandating companies to pay money to the government, but oppose the idea of government mandating companies to spend money on their employees?

Well...I didn't say anything about democratic or republican values, so I won't answer a strawman question. I DID say that this proposal is nothing more than the government becoming a dictatorship...demanding that a business spend money on something they may or may not want to buy. We have entirely too much of this kind of thing already. Witness Obamacare.
Click to expand...

That's a very perverted definition of dictatorship you have there.

The Man said:
I think the number of abortions needs to increase greatly. Not nearly enough people in this country who should have abortions are having them.
Click to expand...

You want more women to go through emotionally traumatic experiences they would prefer to avoid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom